He felt such a question was hardly a proper subject for a GAC recommenda-.
tion.
Dr, Buckley shared this view.
Dr. Rabi expressed grave doubts
that the Committee should make a recommendation on the subject without
far more study, especially in view of the imminence of Castle.
Dr. von
Neumann agreed that it would be better to withhold a recommendation until
after Castle,
The Committee agreed that a discussion of larger thermonuclear
Agenda,
weapons should be en item on the agenda for the next mecting.
Meeting
B, item 1)
Next
(Appendix
The Committee did not have an opportunity at this meeting to study
Small
the paper on small weapons (VGHuston-to-IIRabi memorandum of October 2nd
Weapons
with five attachments) .
With regard to this subject » Dr. Wigner urged
that more attention should be given to defense measures, and that the
use of small atomic bombs as antiaircraft weapons should be thoroughly
considered,
This feeling was shared by several members of the Committee.
The fact that Los Alamos and Livermore are pursuing the small weapcns
question was viewed with favor.
oo
It was brought up again that great advantages > particularly in szall
Improvements in
Chemical
uk
weapons but actually in all size ranges, would accrue ‘from improvements
in chemical high explosives.
ao8
-
indicate that they have made significant advances with HE,
Dr. von
Neumann again referred to expert opinion (Kistiakowsky) that 30-40%
improvement in HE performance might be achieved,
The usual severe requiry
ments on stability and surveillance behavior might be relaxed somewhat
Denartment cf Energy
Histcrien’s Cifloe
’ ARCHIVES
. ¥9 _